User talk:Scaleshombre

-Thanks

Thanks for your efforts to improve United States and state terrorism, Please don't get discouraged by the POV pushers. V7-sport (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, welcome back! The above statement still stands, 6+ months into editing the same article.....:-) V7-sport (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for that Barn-star, You made my night. V7-sport (talk) 06:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Books LLC, Alphascript, Betascript, Fastbook Publishing ...

69 Sexy Things 2 Do Before You Die

I've removed the following Books LLC reference:

Books L.L.C. (2010), Playboy Television Series: The Girls Next Door, Night Calls, 69 Sexy Things 2 Do Before You Die, 7 Lives Exposed, Electric Blue, ISBN 1155882423, retrieved 2011-01-23

See: User:Fences and windows/Unreliable sources and Amazon.com controversies#Sale of Wikipedia.27s material as books. °°Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3O filing

Please note that the 3O noticeboard is for scenarios where there is already a discussion at the Talkpage involving two editors who are unable to reach a compromise. For your situation I would recommend considering WP:3RN or other forms of dispute resolution. Good luck. DonIago (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved comment

To better follow the timing and flow, I moved your comment and updated it to reflect its new position. If that's unsuitable, you can revert. Dreadstar ☥ 03:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Thx Dreadstar. --Scaleshombre (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Irene Caesar. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Dreadstar ☥ 00:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not do a comparison of any situation here with that of a child molester, eh? Dreadstar ☥ 01:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon... Hitleresque rantings about "evil Jews" don't rise to the same level of malevolence as lurid fantasies (remember, he's just describing his fantasies, not actual crimes) about child molesting? Really? Scaleshombre (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for 24 hours for violating the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy; you cannot use such an egregious comparison as you did. Dreadstar ☥ 02:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadstar, I didn't make the comparison within the article page. Plus we're talking about someone who adheres to a genocidal ideology. In my view it's on the same moral plane as a child molester. Don't I have the right to make that comparison?Scaleshombre (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. And WP:BLP applies to any and all pages in Wikipedia, including talk and user pages. You just can't do that, unless a high quality reliable source per BLP has made such a comparison. And that's the problem here, there are no high quality reliable sources that even mention this particular content, much less your own view on it. Dreadstar ☥ 02:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, since you're such a stickler for policy, you should note that you're not permitted to block me. WP:BP specifically states "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." Scaleshombre (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not engaged in a content dispute, I'm trying to explain Policy regarding the dispute you and the other editors are having. Dreadstar ☥ 04:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadstar, can I ask you a favor while my block remains in effect? Since Exclusive analysis55 has been revealed as Sophiedookh's sock puppet, can you remove her comments from the Irene Caesar AfD page? (Or perhaps merge them with Sophiedookh's comments.) Thanks Scaleshombre (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irene Caesar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constructivism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lives Matter

Your undoing my edit was not appropriate. Per WP:BRD, if you are "bold" and are "reverted", the next step is to "discuss" the edit. I suggest you start a discussion on Talk:Black Lives Matter if you want to pursue this. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for undoing your edit, but I feel that I'm within the "bold" policy. Per your suggestion, I've started a discussion of my edits on BLM's talk page. I've also reinstated my edits because I think they comply with your main objection, which is that they're backed by RS. Let me ask you the same courtesy you asked me -- please don't revert until other voices have weighed in. Scaleshombre (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Roger Waters. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Calidum 00:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to post the same warning. You're absolutely correct in your edit, but being right is not an excuse for edit warring so please stop. Jeppiz (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scaleshombre, logging out to push your views is not a good idea. Don't do it. Nymf (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nymf, I didn't do that edit. On what basis are you accusing me?

WP:DUCK? Nevertheless, there are ways to determine who made a certain edit. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 05:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, by all means, do what you have to do to determine who made the edit. If the process shows my innocence, I'd like that duly noted. Thank you. Scaleshombre (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Waters Talk Page

Thank You for your courteous note and accolade on my home page, which is deeply appreciated. However, regarding the Roger Waters controversy, I believe you made a tactical error. I had been waiting until this morning to change the name of the applicable subsection and then go to arbitration when it was reverted on the grounds that it was (as you suggested earlier on the RW talk page) not a major change because all the change would do is to headline what the section itself is largely about. Therefore, such a reversion would be capricious and perhaps biased. I believe that would have been a strong argument. However, asking for a new RfC constitutes an alternative to ANI and is not a "first try one and then if you fail try the other" mechanism. The original RfC was not about a simple name change. As I stated on the page after you made this request, I believe the result would not be significantly different than the one for your original RfC about adding a section (in effect, promoting the already existing subsection). In this assessment, alas, I’m afraid I must actually agree with Dave Dial whom I am loath to agree with on anything beyond, perhaps, the weather forecast. You can go ahead with your new RfC as he says, but I must once again agree with him that you probably should revisit the issue at a later time, perhaps a year from now or so. That is, however, your decision. In the meantime, take solace in the fact that at least the substance of what we want already exists. It is only the appropriate nomenclature that is lacking.

Thanks again and best regards,HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for that very interesting discussion, despite its dark subject matter, and hope to work with you in the future. I certainly think your correct theory regarding the complexity and interaction of the nazi death-machine can be expanded in that section of the lede with a couple of existing refs from the posen article. Speer was there alright in oct! I am sure you have read Serenys' excellent Albert Speer. His battle with Truth. A great work of biographical journalism. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I created the All lives matter article. Feel free to add to it BlackAmerican (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Scaleshombre. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fidel Castro. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Notification

I have filed a dispute on the article of Fidel Castro. I do this because it is recommended "If you begin a discussion of another user on a common notice board, it is expected that you will notify the subject user by posting a message on their talk page". Do not report me as vandal. This is the only instance in which I will write something here. If this is not the way to do it, let me know how it is done. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me become a better editor. Jhaydn2016 (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASSING

Please don't engage in canvassing, as you did here:

00:58, 3 December 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+294)‎ . . User talk:Spartan7W ‎ (→‎Dispute Notification) (current)
00:56, 3 December 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+290)‎ . . User talk:Pudeo ‎ (→‎Dispute Notification) (current)
00:51, 3 December 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+360)‎ . . User talk:Eric0928 ‎ (→‎Castro "dictator" debate: new section) (current)

These were all editors that supported your position in a dispute. Messaging like-minded editor's to ask them to weigh in on a content dispute is a policy violation. Thanks. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, you're misinterpreting Canvassing policy. See WP:APPNOTE. Scaleshombre (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it satisfies the criterion for vote-stacking. You may have intended to simply contact taciturn editors, but policy is blind to intent. So I'm assuming you meant well, but still asking you to refrain from canvassing only like-minded editors. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly improper canvassing, "leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote."[1] If you continue to do this I will apply to have you blocked from editing. TFD (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of balance, I'm notifying editors from earlier in the discussion who expressed a negative view on adding dictator to the lede. Scaleshombre (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Addendum to my comment above: I scanned the talk page and I think that everyone who originally weighed, pro or con, in on the dictator in the lede issue has formalized their position in the Survey section. If there are names that I missed, I'm happy to notify them. But I need you to tell me whom. Again, only editors who specifically weighed in previously on the dictator-lede issue.)Scaleshombre (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Your recent editing history at Rudy Giuliani shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re: "opinion"

the onus is on those claiming dictatorship. mao's work and others will reveal that many millions of people did not consider stalin a dictator. Millions of people on this planet considered him a comrade and an ally. I have not added those words to his page. He was not a dictator. it's not within wikipedia's ostensible claims to "neutrality" to leave this ludicrous claim on this man's page. it's biased, and unfounded at that. please remove it, and keep it removed, to be in line with the goals of this web site.

Stayhomegal (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice, Scaleshombre: WP:DNFTT. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna, you're absolutely right. All the fireworks exploding outside my window today have roused me into "battle mode." Serenity now! Scaleshombre (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, Frank... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP tone

Greetings. I have partially redacted one of your recent talk page comments – please note that blatantly disparaging commentary about living persons is not appropriate for Wikipedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Sarsour — Bari Weiss

Greetings. please note that the burden to achieve consensus is on the editor who adds or restores disputed material. Continuing to reinstate contentious material without a clear consensus can be viewed as edit warring and may result in an account being blocked. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CBS

Three things to consider:

The sources for the item you restored are primary sources for the social media posting and CBS's statement. Secondary sources are those which discuss the situation and its meaning. Reliable sources can be either primary or secondary. Wikipedia uses secondary sources for all but the most basic of factual data that no one is likely to dispute.
The governing police is WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT#NOTNEWS.
When the time comes, when secondary sources are available, the place for covering this relatively minor fallout of the main event is likely in a yet-to-be-written Wikipedia article covering reactions to the massacre.

For the above reasons I suggest you reconsider that two editors have already objected to adding this section to the CBS article, and discuss on the article talk page rather than restoring the section. It is not a question whether this is a case of in-the-new (which it is), but rather that WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT#NOTNEWS, a Wikipedia policy stating that Wikipedia is "not a newspaper"—it is an encyclopedia. — Neonorange (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"discuss on the article talk page rather than restoring the section." That's fine. FWIW, primary sources in this case would be the social media posting itself and/or a CBS press release. News articles reporting the incident are secondary sources. Scaleshombre (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Yusra Khogali concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Yusra Khogali, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Scaleshombre. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Yusra Khogali

Hello, Scaleshombre. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Yusra Khogali".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of DS

Hi - I am posting the notice of DS to everybody recently active on Sarah Jeong who has not had a notice of these DS in the past year.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Scaleshombre. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Project HEAL logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Project HEAL logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]